Homosexual Marriage

[another day]

If marriage can be protected from homosexual marriage on the grounds that it is a religious institution, then all government recognition and benefits of it should be abolished. Otherwise it would be a violation of seperation of church and state. You either make marriage a secular thing, meaning anyone can marry any other person, or you break the ties and make marriage a purely religious thing with no government benefits or recognition. You can't have it both ways.

[Nurf]

Definition of Marriage(copied exactly from dictionary.com): the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

End of story.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Nurf Definition of Marriage(copied exactly from dictionary.com): the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. End of story.

No, just the current snapshot of the story. History shows marriage has been utilized for a number of different purposes over the years.

Try looking in a history book for a change.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai What does it mean to "like" or "dislike" a person?

To hold their personality in high positive regard or high negative regard.

Quote by: Fonceai That would lead to question number two... what does it mean to "know" a person? I thought maybe it was simple; knowing enough about multiple behaviors and aspects of a person to pass judgment.

I agree with this on the whole.

Quote by: Fonceai Which led me to the third question... how well do you have to know a person, meaning how many behaviors do you have to be aware of, until you can judge them?

Obviously you can’t quantify the knowledge required to “know” someone. However, I think it’s safe to say that homosexuality is not a representative part of someone’s personality. I mean what can homosexuality actually tell you about the person other than that they are attracted to members of the same sex?

Quote by: Fonceai I would suggest that at the lowest limit, zero behaviors, you can't judge them. By that argument, you can't judge a person based on gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc., because none of those things tell you something about the personality. But what about just one behavior? I propose that knowing just one thing about the actual person is enough to judge them. Prejudice is if you know nothing about the personality. But once you have one behavior to go from, you can start judging. You can even modify and change it later, but one is enough.

It would have to be a sample of behaviour representative of their entire personality. I very much doubt that this can be obtained from one aspect of behaviour, much less from sexual preference alone.

Quote by: Fonceai You can even modify and change it later,

In which case your judgement would have been based on ignorance as to the true nature of their personality.

Quote by: Fonceai I realized that if the news aired a story about a man who severely beat, sodomized, and murdered a small child, I would hate the man. That one aspect of him would tell me that he deserved to die. I don't think it's prejudice to dislike a person because they have one behavior that I don't like.

I think it absolutely is prejudice. You are judging his entire character based on one action. Judging him before you know him: Pre-judging.

Furthermore, I don’t believe it to be possible that you would actually hate him. You would hate the action of beating, sodomizing and murdering a small child. However, since disliking someone involves holding their personality in high negative regard, and since you know very little of his personality, you cannot, by definition, hate him.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Bacon I mean what can homosexuality actually tell you about the person other than that they are attracted to members of the same sex?

That's all it can tell you.

Quote by: Bacon It would have to be a sample of behaviour representative of their entire personality.

How a person evaluates and decides who they want to love is a significant part of their personality.

Quote by: Bacon I think it absolutely is prejudice. You are judging his entire character based on one action. Judging him before you know him: Pre-judging.

Prejudice implies knowing nothing. Knowing just one thing is more than nothing.

Quote by: Bacon However, since disliking someone involves holding their personality in high negative regard, and since you know very little of his personality, you cannot, by definition, hate him.

I can't hate someone who has the personality that abuses, rapes, and murders a child?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai How a person evaluates and decides who they want to love is a significant part of their personality.

Homosexuality is not about whom a person decides to love; it is about what they are sexually aroused by. Considering that this aspect of their character is limited to one very small aspect of life, one which will not affect you in any way, I would call it a fairly insignificant part of someone’s personality.

Quote by: Fonceai Prejudice implies knowing nothing. Knowing just one thing is more than nothing.

Prejudice implies not knowing enough to make an accurate judgement.

Quote by: Fonceai I can't hate someone who has the personality that abuses, rapes, and murders a child?

You can hate the rape and murder aspect of his character. However, you cannot truly hate the person unless you feel that that raping’n’murdering is prevalent in the majority of the aspects of their character.

[kpow]

whhhhhhhhhhhow loads to read up on.....

i feel on the whoel i agree with what bacon guy is saying.....being gay ISNT enough to make a judgement of whether or not you like someone....the fact of being attracted to memberrs of the same sex has NOTHING at all to do with your personality....homosexuals are as varieryed as hetrosexuals and bisexuals are......

oh and BACON GUY...im at a pirate party atm....LOL ive taken my costum off and retired upstairs though....my mums friends are scary LOL :) so in answer to your avatar YES i am i pirate...or i was 5mins ago

[nyxnekhbet]

A few thoughts...

1) This is a civil rights issue - discrimination should not be written into our laws and especially not our constitution.
I helped campaign for gay rights in Wisconsin (FairWisconsin.com) this past fall and the referendum to ban gay marriage still passed. I was really disappointed but I am thankful that the election did result in a swing to the left so chances are that the referendum results will go nowhere.
2) If the christian right is going to claim marriage as one of their sacred rights then I'd prefer a civil union, please.
3) I've been married twice and personally I don't see why anyone straight, gay, crooked or otherwise would want to do it.
If you love someone and want to be with them then do that... there's no piece of paper that says you can't love whomever you want whenever you want.

[legallyinsane]

I just joined and this is my first post on this site. I don't even know if this will post correctly, so if it doesn't post right then my bad.....I'm learning.

I was reading through only a couple of pages worth and haven't seen what everybody has said up to this point so I might be covering old ground. I have a quick question about nyxnekhbet's latest post.

If you love someone and want to be with them then do that... there's no piece of paper that says you can't love whomever you want whenever you want.

I've been doing some thinking lately on this very thing. My question is this: if we can love whomever we want, where is the line drawn as to what is socially acceptable and who dictates where it is drawn? An example would be that if we can love whomever we want then why should it be prohibited for an adult to intimately love a child?
Thoughts?

[legallyinsane]

BTW, can anyone help me out with how to make a quote box that automatically states who the quote is from? As opposed to typing it in everytime.
Yeah, I know.....pretty lazy of me.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: kpow oh and BACON GUY...im at a pirate party atm....LOL ive taken my costum off and retired upstairs though....my mums friends are scary LOL so in answer to your avatar YES i am i pirate...or i was 5mins ago

Hahar, glad to hear it! Nothing like a good pirate party.

Quote by: legallyinsane I've been doing some thinking lately on this very thing. My question is this: if we can love whomever we want, where is the line drawn as to what is socially acceptable and who dictates where it is drawn? An example would be that if we can love whomever we want then why should it be prohibited for an adult to intimately love a child? Thoughts?

As far as I’m concerned, the line is drawn when the act of sex is harmful and has a direct victim.

• The rationale behind prohibiting sex with kids is that they are not mature enough to consent and it is therefore child abuse.
  
  
• The rationale behind prohibiting bestiality is that animals can’t consent (although when did we ever ask for animals' consent on anything?).
  
  
• The rationale (with which I disagree) behind prohibiting incest is that it increases the probability of offspring from the relationship being born with genetic defects.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, there are no victims, so it should not be prohibited on any level, be it social or legal.

Quote by: legallyinsane BTW, can anyone help me out with how to make a quote box that automatically states who the quote is from? As opposed to typing it in everytime. Yeah, I know.....pretty lazy of me.

I always just type the names in manually, but I think there's a way to do it automatically using the quick-quote feature. You might find it here: Chris's guide to the forum's formatting.

And welcome to you and to nyxnekhbet.

[nyxnekhbet]

In my opinion the line that determines who you can love is 'consent'. It should, by definition eliminate the possibility of adult-child, human-animal, etc. relationships. In this country consent is fairly well defined by our legal system and it applies to everyone regardless of sexual preference.

[legallyinsane]

Hey Bacon Guy...thanks for the welcome and the assist on the whole quote thing.
OK, so I read what was said about the consent issue.
[quote]Quote by The Bacon Guy: [The rationale behind prohibiting sex with kids is that they are not mature enough to consent and it is therefore child abuse.
/QUOTE]

Quote by nyxnekhbet: In my opinion the line that determines who you can love is 'consent'.

So if consent is pretty much the determining factor then what about polygamy? I know that certain, and rather large, groups of mormons are actually assisting and cheering for a legilization of homosexual marriage because they want to be next in line for the U.S. federal government to recognize their practices as acceptable.

As far as kids are concerned: the age of consent differs depending on where you are. For instance, in Nevada the age of consent is 16.
[quote]Quote by nyxnekhbet: [In this country consent is fairly well defined by our legal system and it applies to everyone regardless of sexual preference./QUOTE]
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is actually attempting to lower the age of consent and eventually do away with it all together. Their premise is that as long as there is no coercion that it's perfectly normal and the government regulates a person's ability to have control over their own bodies.

The reason I bring this up is because marriage is also fairly well defined by our legal system, but it's trying to be changed. Why couldn't the same also be true of the age of consent?

By the way, I gotta ask.....what does nyxnekhbet mean?

[legallyinsane]

Apparently I messed up on quoting what The Bacon Guy stated...my bad.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: legallyinsane So if consent is pretty much the determining factor then what about polygamy? I know that certain, and rather large, groups of mormons are actually assisting and cheering for a legilization of homosexual marriage because they want to be next in line for the U.S. federal government to recognize their practices as acceptable.

Well, I don't have any problem with polygamy being legalised, so I can't really answer that.

Quote by: legallyinsane As far as kids are concerned: the age of consent differs depending on where you are. For instance, in Nevada the age of consent is 16.

There's a whole other debate on the age of consent, on which I have my own opinions. However, the rationale behind the age of consent laws in our society is always to protect children from harm, since it is believed that they are not mature enough to consent. Note here that the rationale behind the establishment of these laws was not necessarily to protect children. However, the continuation of these age of consent laws is done in order to protect children and ensure that no one is harmed by sex.

Quote by: legallyinsane The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is actually attempting to lower the age of consent and eventually do away with it all together. Their premise is that as long as there is no coercion that it's perfectly normal and the government regulates a person's ability to have control over their own bodies. The reason I bring this up is because marriage is also fairly well defined by our legal system, but it's trying to be changed. Why couldn't the same also be true of the age of consent?

Marriage and age of consent are both well defined, but this is not in itself reason to support or oppose either concept. What we should base our opinion on is the potential harm cause by the scenario in question.

If it is determined that children are mature enough to consent, and that no one will be harmed by the abolition of the age of consent, I am all for doing away with it. However, if the age of consent truly is protecting children from harm, I support it. In the matter of homosexual marriage, there is no doubt that it causes no verifiable harm to anyone. Hence, there is no credible rationale for opposing it.

[pikatore]

North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

lol.

[GraceAustin]

The question was "Where do you stand?"
OK. I stand firmly with the Constitution of the United States, which gave no if's, and's, or but's on the issue of equal rights.

[dilligras]

Quote by: legallyinsane The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is actually attempting to lower the age of consent and eventually do away with it all together.

That's because they're a bunch of cowardly scumbags who haven't the intestinal fortitude to maintain a relationship with someone their own age, so they prey on the weak and vulnerable in order to have contact with someone they can easily manipulate to their twisted self-indulgences.

They are people who need to be locked away from any possible contact with the children they target for the callous destruction of their lives--for no reason other than the temporary satisfaction of their next sexual/domination urge.

If one of them ever layed a finger on one of my descendants, I fear I would not be one to countenance restraint in my reprisal. The sumbitch would likely discover the taste of his own genitals, just as soon as I could arrange it for him.

Then I'd shoot the bastard, as per the requirement for all legal inhabitants of Cut n' Shoot, Texas.

Their premise is that as long as there is no coercion that it's perfectly normal....

It is a false premise, given that the very nature of the 'relationship' precludes ANY interaction where the child might be said to be on an equal footing with the adult as far as power in the relationship is concerned.......which is exactly why the pitifully sick fucks seek it out.

....and the government regulates a person's ability to have control over their own bodies

According to the Supreme Ct, Roe vs Wade, the govt. does not have that authority. Otherwise abortion would still be illegal in all but 28 states.




As you were <<disgusted>>

[Runa216]

Frankly, for the life of me, I can't see why this is still a debate. I think it's childish and Narrowminded to not allow those who wish to marry do so. Yes, I am aware that it is a church thing, but the world is changing, it's diverse. Gays marrying should in no way impact on your precious christian beliefs. if you still want to stay hetero and 'traditional' then do so. don't deny others the right to do what they want. we have a freedom of religion, so allow others to practice it.

[pikatore]

But I'm not christian, and i am kind of hesitant about it. why?